Friday, 25th July 2008
Sliema townhouses demolition
Mepa accused of breaching heritage law
The six Sliema townhouses in Howard Street corner with Milner Street which are set to be demolished. Photo: Chris Sant Fournier.
The Malta Environment and Planning Authority's decision to approve the demolition of six Sliema townhouses that will be replaced by apartments is in breach of the Heritage Act, Flimkien Għal Ambjent Aħjar (FAA) spokesman Astrid Vella said.
Representatives of the Sliema local council and FAA gathered outside the houses yesterday to voice their concerns about Mepa's decision that was taken even though its Heritage Advisory Committee (HCA) advised against it.
Ms Vella explained that the initial Mepa application - to build apartments and garages on Milner and Howard Street in Sliema - was submitted in February 2006 and was rejected in July that year because the houses were within the urban conservation area (UCA). When the final local plans were issued, round about August 2006, the houses were withdrawn from the UCA without consulting Sliema residents or the local council.
The developer filed the second Mepa application (PA06269/06) in October 2006 and, now that the buildings were cleared from the UCA, the project was approved.
"This rings alarm bells," Ms Vella said as she insisted that the houses -Grade II heritage buildings - need not be in the UCA to be protected.
She explained that, according to the Heritage Act, Grade II buildings could only be subject to sensitive alterations in-keeping with the character of the building. Demolition was far from "sensitive", she said.
She added that "the DCC A chairman initially agreed with our submissions that the Heritage Act, which applies to these buildings, obviously applies irrespective of area". Yet, the full development permit was granted earlier this month even after HAC noted (in its minutes) that "the committee thought it was strange that the zone where the buildings lie was withdrawn from the UCA".
"Why is there a total refusal on the part of the authorities to consider a limited review of the local plans," Ms Vella asked.
She noted that the project had not been subjected to the EU's Minimal Energy Efficiency regulations by the Mepa board before approval. When she asked the DCC chairman about such regulations, she was told that energy-efficiency tests would be assessed after construction. "This is a mockery and clear infringement of EU regulations," Ms Vella said.
FAA was not against development as such but opposed anything that broke the law.
Local councillors present said they unanimously voted against the development. Michael Briguglio pointed out that the council was a registered objector and was considering appealing the Mepa decision.
RSS
Comments
One can see these houses as "a beauty". Others might see them in a wider context as "an ugly gap". It's all very subjective. Beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder. On this we can agree.
Regarding the rent laws, my point is that here is a double injustice. First, the owners could not do anything with their property because of the rent laws. Now when they (or a new owner, it's immaterial) apply for a permit, they suffer another injustice simply because they are last (or almost last) to apply. It's unfair.
I fully agree with you regarding the "ugly concrete monsters... 'gracing' the front". If Sliema were all a two/three-storey area away from the front, almost all buildings would have a view and it would be much fairer. But it was not to be. One has to take that into consideration as well and the fact that many buildings inside Sliema are high rise as well.
As for your reference to the house falling under the old rent laws, it is not the original owners of such house applying for the permit, but the developer who has bought all the houses which are at the centre of this dispute.
Oh, and I don't form part of any anti-building-anything brigade (as you put it). That is entirely your assumption. I am simply against destroying what is obviously much more beautiful than any ugly concrete monster such as the ones "gracing" the front.
@ Amanda Mallia:
Thanks for lecturing me and telling me I'm an ignoramus. I always appreciate civil and respectful arguments.
At least now you accept that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" which makes the argument about these six houses a subjective one. Beauty in the eye of the beholder is no compelling reason to break these property owners' rights.
That's precisely my point and we seem to be agreeing.
You now imply as well that one property was sibject to old rent laws. Which makes the argument even more interesting.
So the owners have suffered the unjust rent laws for decades. Now, being last or almost last to apply for permits because of the rent laws, they suffer another injustice at the hands of the anti-building-anything brigade.
Sounds exactly like the parable of the talents: For unto every one that hath shall be given, but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath!
Should Sliema be turned into Bugibba or Qawra? Hardly.
As for the houses themselves, the sellers were not necessarily the actual residents of the houses. In at least two cases, I know for a fact that they weren't, at least one of them falling under the old rent laws, so you get my drift.
Another thing, I am not telling the "property owners" what to do; if I did it would probably be a tad too descriptive anyway.
MEPA, on the other hand, looks like it may need a bit of a clear-up, with these buildings first forming part of the UCA, and then conveniently suddenly withdrawn from it in time for the application for this permit to be made. It doesn't smell too good.
It does, however, give you a better appreciation of the Sliema that once was, and of the little that is left of it, giving you a greater desire to protect it from the money-grabbing individuals who will never see further than the tip of their nose.
What do Slimizi want - to sell and then keep telling the new owners what to do with their property? If they sold, it's too late now. Only the owner has rights over the property.
I lived in Sliema. But when blocks started going up, I moved to an old village where no one can build further than two storeys. And they all obey. You see, village people are infinitely more civilized than some Slimizi.
Now that I left Sliema, I don't keep telling property owners there what to do. They own the property, they decide. Who am I to tell them what to do in a town where I have no property any more?
And all this fuss about these houses is really a storm in a teacup. This is a row built together when Sliema had its first invasion 70/80 years ago. These houses have no history and no character. If you want to see character, go to Qrendi, Safi, Nigret (Zurrieq), Mqabba, Zebbug-core, Siggiewi, Mgarr, Gozo.
Sliema has long been over and out.
Actually the gaps left are like a child's mouth with teeth missing -
ugly and inappropriate!
@ Mrs Astrid Vella
My point is that the report you quote is just one PART of the submissions. The decision is made on the whole corpus of submissions and not just on one report that represents the point of view of ONE party (in this case the Devil's Advocate, as it were, who is part of MEPA procedures).
I do stress my point that you should enter as an objector in MEPA procedures and not CRIMINALISE property owners who have every right to sell and/or apply for permits. Going around bandying photos of their property in the press and holding press conference on their doorstep is just that, criminalising the property owner rather than making your point within the appropriate public authority.
Furthermore, this is a country where the rule of law - and not the rules of the MEDIA FRENZY - reigns supreme. Rights - including property owners' rights to apply for and get permits for redevelopment - are decided upon by competent public authorities at law and not by FAA or the press.
@ A Mallia
Rights are enjoyed by all EQUALLY, whether they are born-and-bred Slimizi or just property owners in Sliema.
Camenzuli, first you say we have no evidence of the houses’ architectural worth, and when we produce a report you criticise the fact that the architectural style is reported as tasteful (“toned-down”) and not vulgar!
You claim that we are intolerant of criticism, and yet we have not suggested that you should not speak up.
You, on the other hand claim that we have no right to speak up and hold public press conferences in the street. Well, let me remind you that this is a free country, a fact you seem to have forgotten.I know you would love to revert to the days when objectors meekly gave up before they even started, saying it’s futile, but FAA has changed all that and will use every means at its disposal, including the media, in order to instil a sense of environmental justice which is a balance between owners and residents' rights.
Incidentally I challenge you to produce one quote of ours where we refer to property owners, let alone criminalise them as you claim.
@ Mrs Astrid Vella
Continuation:
I won’t enter into your point that I’m a “development-at-all-costs pariah”. Unfortunately, the way you label people who disagree with you shows a tendency to FUNDAMENTALISM that should not be part of a civilized public debate.
My point is that property owners have RIGHTS. Property owners are no pariahs, they are just equal citizens who have every right to ask for what is rightfully theirs, including development permits that have already been enjoyed by other people neighbouring them and in their same circumstances.
And they have the right as well not to be depicted as CRIMINALS, with their properties’ PHOTOS bandied about in the press and FAA holding Press Conferences on their DOORSTEPS.
You may, and should, object to this (and other) developments in Sliema within MEPA’s procedures that are designed to protect everybody’s rights including property-owners’ rights to have their applications decided upon serenely and fairly AT LAW and not by a MEDIA FRENZY.
@ Mrs Astrid Vella
The report you quote is part of the submissions upon which the decision by MEPA has been based. But, just like any Court case, the decision takes into consideration ALL arguments, not just those of one party. And it is the decision that counts, not any one part of the submissions.
Furthermore, this part you quote is NO PROOF of any historic or architectural value. If at all, it’s a very WEAK CASE saying that these houses are built in a “TONED-DOWN” style! You should chide the author of the report, not quote him/her!
Unfortunately, FAA never appreciates the fact that MEPA has several structures and levels and inbuilt in its structure is the role of Devil’s Advocate performed by the case officer. His/her arguments are, again, only part of the submissions. What counts is not only what the case officer said, but the whole corpus of submissions that led to MEPA's decision.
There are several further steps objectors can take, including appeals and recourse to the Courts – always based on the principles that it’s neither FAA, nor a report, nor the case officer who decides, but MEPA – the public authority vested at law.
So much talking and promises but none fulfilled.
@ A Mallia
Continuation:
These houses are already surrounded by high buildings. Their owners should not be penalised simply because they decided to redevelop only now and not 10 or 20 years ago as several of their neighbours did.
Does Preluna have less rights than anybody else to own property and get permits to build or rebuild? And if it were not Preluna but somebody else, does that make that somebody else more deserving of permits?
You also differentiate between people who lived in Sliema (but presumably have now left) and new property owners in Sliema. Do owners’ rights depend on whether they are born-and-bred-(and-left) Slimizi or just ‘new-breed’ Slimizi?
Actually, it is the owners (whether ‘true’ or ‘faux’ Slimizi) who enjoy rights over their property, including the right to ask public competent authorities for permits to redevelop. Others, of course, can object within the structures and procedures of MEPA and, like all other citizens, have to abide by the public authority’s decision at law.
Finally, your comment that “they should try building in Zurrieq” is just the type of remark that drags the whole argument to a divisive tirade rather than a civilized discussion that treats everyone equally.
@ A Mallia
I empathise with other residents (while building is going on) and passers-by, but that does not mean property owners cannot get permits and rebuild as others in their same circumstances did before them.
My point is that in a liberal-democracy, property RIGHTS are fundamental and, like other rights, are enjoyed despite others’, even the majority’s, disagreement.
Furthermore, we live by the rule of law. Property owners’ rights to develop or redevelop do not depend on others’ opinions, but on the law itself and their rights.
Permits are issued according to law not by private citizens or private voluntary organisations but by PUBLIC institutions VESTED AT LAW with such a function.
Our laws allow private citizens/organizations to enter as objectors and this is what FAA should do. FAA should also PROVE historic/architectural value, which is not the same as just being ‘old’. If FAA then disagrees with MEPA, there are further steps it can take, including appeals and recourse to the Courts.
What FAA should NOT do is depict these houses’ owners as if they were criminals, publishing photos and holding press conferences on their doorsteps, breaking their right to enjoy their property rights according to law.
Camenzuli, sorry to disappoint you, FAA campaigns are always based on fact as attested by this report on the houses to be demolished: "This row which pivots on a street corner boasts some of the best examples of toned-down Art Nouveau and Art Deco in the area, characteristic of the early 1900s that were so fashionable in Europe at the time. Those who did so such as architect/ developer Gustavo Vincenti (1888-1974) produced these and buildings such as those in Amery street metres away from the row in question."
But don't take our word for it, this is what the MEPA case officer said:
"It was made very clear in the previous application by the DCC that the facade should be retained. On this alone the development should be rejected.The proposed Demolition is contrary to Structure Plan Policy UCO 06, UCO 07, UCO 13 as existing buildings form a group of houses typical of traditional Sliema and the development will not maintain the visual integrity of the area in breach of policy Ben 2"
Still it is obvious from your writings that you are one of the development-at-all costs pariahs, so such values would mean nothing to you.
As for the "buildings on fhe front dwarfing the houses in the photo", those are none other than the Preluna, save a small block of flats to the far right. What makes you think that the proposed "block of flats" will not be turned into part of the Preluna, who are (or at least were, until quite recently) using one of the said houses in Howard Street as a store?
You are also wrong about Sliema property owners being angry at FAA. The people who, like myself, were born and brought up in Sliema, and spent most of our lives there, are extremely saddened with the way it has lost its character. It is the "new breed" of Sliema property owners who may be irate with the situation. Maybe they should try building in Zurrieq.
In the webpage giving the first story about these six houses, there is an interesting debate, including contributions by residents who are bearing the brunt of these repetitive campaigns by FAA.
The problem with FAA is its utter disregard for fundamental property rights.
The burden of proof of any architectural or historic value lies fully on FAA. But FAA has brought no shred of evidence that these six houses have any historical or architectural value. Being 70 years old is not enough.
Every single property owner in this country has the right to ask for and obtain permits from the competent public authority at law (ie MEPA, not FAA) to build or rebuild. Every single owner has the right to be treated equally with other owners in the same streets who built apartment blocks in the past.
Sliema property owners have now grown sick of these FAA holier-than-thou campaigners.
The right to build blocks of flats in Sliema does not pertain only to people on the front who dwarf others' properties (as can be seen in this photo) and then go about telling others not to build!
See:
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20080724/local/asds/
DCC hasn't changed . . . echoes of Mistra keep reverberating . . . . perhaps the board that took the decision on this application should resign as well, particularly if the chairperson is so badly informed on the Energy Directive as to suggest something as asinine as testing a building AFTER completion !
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20080724/local/asds